Federal Judge Rules PA 3rd Party Candidate Requirements Unconstitutional

[Divernan]

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

July 24, 2015 1:56 PM
(Sub headline)Until this morning, Pennsylvania required a minor-party candidate for statewide office -- like Ralph Nader in 2004 -- to garner many more signatures than their Democrat or Republican counterparts.

By Chris Potter / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A federal court judge has ruled that Pennsylvania's Election Code sets an unconstitutionally high bar on third-party political candidates, by requiring them to gather more signatures than Democrats or Republicans — and by having to defend their validity in court.

"The ability of the minor parties to organize and voice their views has been decimated" by the combined impact of Election Code provisions, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled this morning. State law "imposes a severe burden" on the three minor parties who challenged the law: the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party.

The ruling means that the Pennsylvania legislature will have to "go back to the drawing board" and redraft ballot requirements for minor-party candidates, said Oliver Hall, an attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Competitive Democracy. Mr. Hall has represented the parties since the legal dispute began, in a separate case, in 2009.

Pennsylvania requires a minor-party candidate for statewide office to garner petition signatures equal to 2 percent of the total vote count in the prior statewide election. In 2014, the requirement was 16,639 signatures, though the number has ranged as high as 67,070 voters in 2006. By contrast, Democratic and Republican candidates are only required to furnish 2,000 signatures to earn a spot on the ballot for their Spring primary. The winner of that contest is automatically guaranteed a ballot spot in November.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2015/07/24/Federal-judge-rules-Pa-third-party-candidate-requirements-unconstitutional/stories/201507240230

[haikugal]

1. This is good news! Thanks! nt

[Divernan]

2. More from OP link:

The judge said that on their own, the signature requirements could still be legal. But for a minor-party candidate, getting the signatures is just the first step. Once gathered, nominating petitions are subject to legal challenges that can easily swamp a candidate's resources. Adding to the risk is the possibility of having to pay the legal costs of their challengers. The resulting costs are "astonishing," the judge wrote.

The first time such penalties were assessed was the failed 2004 Green Party presidential campaign of Ralph Nader, which the state's Commonwealth Court ordered to pay $81,102.19. Judge Stengel estimated such costs could range as high as $130,000, and that even a successful defense could cost $50,000. Such costs, Judge Stengel found, discouraged participation by candidates: Some, he noted, have dropped out immediately after a challenge was filed because they lacked the resources to fight in court.

"Prior to the [Nader case], minor party candidates regularly appeared on the general election ballot," Judge Stengel wrote. Since 2004, however, the Greens have only been able to field two statewide candidates, during the 2012 presidential race. While the state's Libertarian Party has had better luck, no minor or independent candidates at all ran in 2006, 2010, and 2014.

"The implications for Pennsylvania voters are obvious," the judge added. Over the past decade, he wrote "With few exceptions .. the electorate has been forced to choose between Democratic and Republican candidates, alone, for statewide office."

Mr. Hall, the attorney from the Center for Competitive Democracy noted that in other states, a candidate's nominating papers are reviewed by the Secretary of State, sparing minor parties the need to defend themselves in court. He state Pennsylvania's law "could be remedied easily" by emulating that approach here, he said, though doing so would require legislative action.

[jtuck004]

3. Excellent. Anyone should be able to just walk up and run. n/t

[Divernan]

4. Perhaps you missed this in the OP:

Pennsylvania requires a minor-party candidate for statewide office to garner petition signatures equal to 2 percent of the total vote count in the prior statewide election.

In 2014, the requirement was 16,639 signatures, though the number has ranged as high as 67,070 voters in 2006.

By contrast, Democratic and Republican candidates are only required to furnish 2,000 signatures to earn a spot on the ballot for their Spring primary. The winner of that contest is automatically guaranteed a ballot spot in November.

Although the number of self-identified independents has fallen slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, about 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents (as measured by self-identification). It is manifestly unfair and does not constitute representative democracy for any state to block them from voting in primaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28voter%29

[Demeter]

5. YES!

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. Yes. There is no constitutional bipartisan lock on the electoral system.